The inability by the UN to rein in aggressor nations mirrors the League of Nations’ failure in 1935, to stop Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia leading to its demise.
By Fareed Khan
On June 21, 2025, American president Donald Trump ordered a military strike on Iran, targeting its nuclear facilities and military infrastructure. This unprovoked act of aggression, following Israel’s earlier attacks, not only escalates tensions in the Middle East but also signals the potential collapse of the United Nations as a credible enforcer of international law. The UN, already weakened by decades of inaction in the face of global atrocities by state actors, now faces a crisis reminiscent of the League of Nations’ failure in 1930s, when Japan invaded and conquered Manchuria in 1932, and when Italy invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935, exposing its impotence.
In the face of the global community’s inability to stop the US or Israel from attacking Iran further this could light the fuse for a broader conflict, destabilizing the entire region, and potentially leading to global war. It is up to nations committed to the rule of law—particularly Western democracies—to condemn this naked aggression against a nation that posed no imminent threat to the US or Israel. Moreover, this aggression underscores a troubling pattern where the US consistently targets adversary nations unable to match its military might whey they allegedly violate international law, while shying away from confronting powerful adversaries like Russia which has invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine. Under Trump, and with this attack, the US has provided more evidence that it is a rogue nation, posing the greatest threat to global peace.
The UN has long struggled to uphold its mandate to maintain international peace and security. Established in 1945 to prevent the horrors of another global war, the UN’s effectiveness has been hamstrung by the veto power of the five permanent Security Council members: the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France. This structural flaw has rendered the UN a toothless tiger, incapable of acting decisively against powerful aggressors. From the Kashmir conflict between Indian and Pakistan, Israel’s decades-long violations of Palestinian rights to the Rwandan genocide, the Balkans conflict, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the ongoing crises involving the Rohingya and Uyghurs, the UN has consistently failed to enforce the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Genocide Convention or the Geneva Conventions. Nations and their leaders which have committed crimes under international law have literally gotten away with murder.
The US strike on Iran is a stark reminder of this impotence, and how seriously broken the so-called international legal order is. Iran had already called for a UN Security Council session to address this blatant violation of its sovereignty as a result of Israel’s attacks, and threats by the US to join Israel’s unprovoked war. But had the meeting taken place it is more than likely that the US would have vetoed any resolution that would have advocated for peace and a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. This inability by the UN to rein in aggressor nations mirrors the League of Nations’ failure in 1935, when Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia faced only token sanctions, exposing the League’s inability to enforce international law. The League’s collapse soon followed, and the UN is now heading towards that same cliff. It may not happen tomorrow but the drift of the UN towards such an end is evident. A post on X by UN Secretary General Antonio Gutterres, condemned the US strike as a “dangerous escalation” and a “direct threat to peace and security, and urged diplomacy, underscoring the organization’s desperation to stay relevant. Yet, without the ability to hold veto-wielding nations accountable, the UN’s credibility as a guarantor of global stability is crumbling as the great powers ignore its pleas for peace and do as they please, with little regard for diplomacy or peace.
The justification for the US and Israeli attacks on Iran—allegedly to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons—lacks credibility. US intelligence officials have stated as recently as last week that Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon—an assessment that Trump has ignored. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, a right it holds under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Israel (an illegal nuclear nation), notably, is not a party. The Israeli strikes, followed by US involvement, appear less about neutralizing a genuine threat and more about advancing Israel’s agenda of becoming the supreme military power in the region, and undercut Iran’s support for the Palestinian resistance movement, which is the strongest among Middle-East nations.
Academic and media analyses reinforces this view. Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute has argued that Iran poses no existential threat to Israel, and any US attack would be driven by Israel’s desire to cripple a regional rival that vocally opposes its policies toward Palestinians. The Atlantic Council notes that Israel’s strikes were motivated by a narrow window of opportunity to target Iran’s nuclear program, not by an imminent threat. This suggests a premeditated act of aggression by Israel rather than a defensive necessity, undermining claims that Iran was an immediate danger to regional peace.
Far from enhancing security, the US and Israeli attacks on Iran risk plunging the Middle East into further chaos. Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone strikes on Israel, which have killed civilians and damaged infrastructure, demonstrate the potential for escalation. The conflict threatens critical global trade routes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, through which half of China’s oil imports pass. Iran’s weakened but still capable military, combined with its proxy forces, could target US bases or shipping lanes, drawing the US into a protracted conflict that will drain its treasury and weaken the US further.
The precedent set by US interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya suggests that such actions often lead to unintended consequences—failed states, refugee crises, and the rise of extremist groups. A destabilized Iran could trigger a regional power vacuum, fuelling civil war or enabling terrorist groups to seize nuclear materials, and create a refugee crisis on par with the Syrian crisis in the early 2010s. The US attack, far from neutralizing a threat, has heightened the risk of a broader regional conflict, with ripple effects that could destabilize surrounding nations, the way that Syria was destabilized as a result of the Iraq War.
The US has a long history of targeting adversary nations unable to match its military might, while avoiding direct confrontation with more formidable adversaries. Iran, despite its regional influence, lacks the capacity to challenge US military dominance directly, making it an easy target. In contrast, the US has refrained from military engagement with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, despite Russia’s clear violation of international law. Trump’s cancellation of a planned meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on June 17, 2025 at the G7 Summit, to focus on the Iran conflict highlights this selective approach. If the US truly prioritized enforcing global peace, it would have confronted Russia’s aggression head-on with military force, rather than targeting a nation like Iran, which has not invaded or occupied another country in modern history.
This pattern of selective aggression—attacking weaker states like Iraq, Libya, and now Iran, while avoiding peer adversaries—exposes the US as a global bully and a rogue nation. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by lies about weapons of mass destruction, resulted in more than a million deaths, a destabilized region, the creation of ISIS, increased incidents of terrorism, and failed to enhance US security. Similarly, the US intervention in Libya in 2011 led to a failed state and a proliferation of arms to terrorist groups, undermining global stability. These actions demonstrate that American aggression, far from making the US safer, often exacerbates threats and fuels anti-American and anti-Western sentiment.
Under Donald Trump, the US has embraced a reckless foreign policy that prioritizes unilateral action over diplomacy. Trump’s bellicose rhetoric, including threats to “take out” Iran’s Supreme Leader and demands for “unconditional surrender,” reflects a delusional and dangerous disregard for international norms. His decision to attack Iran, despite ongoing nuclear negotiations, undermines the diplomatic efforts of US allies and shows the world that the US is a danger to its adversaries as well as its allies. Trump’s apparent yearning for an era when imperialism ruled the world is likely to cause other nations to see it as a danger to global peace and will accelerate US decline as a global power.
The United State’s actions under Trump mirror those of a rogue nation, launching unprovoked attacks, flouting international law and destabilizing peace and the global order. By aligning closely with Israel, another state accused of violating international norms, the US has eroded its already diminishing moral authority. The failure of US allies—particularly NATO members—to condemn this unprovoked aggression risks legitimizing a global order of might-makes-right. If these nations do not act to uphold the rule of law, they will be complicit in the erosion of the international legal order and the potential slide towards a conflict that could engulf nations around the world.
The American attack on Iran could be the spark that ignites a broader war. Russia, a key Iranian ally, has warned that the conflict risks a “nuclear catastrophe,” while China, reliant on Iranian oil, faces significant economic disruption, and could act to protect its economic interests. In addition, the involvement of regional actors, such as the Houthis, who have threatened to target ships in the Red Sea or Hezbollah, could escalate the conflict further. If Iran retaliates against US bases or allies, the cycle of escalation could knock over other dominoes, draw in other major powers, and result in a global conflagration.
The UN’s inability to act decisively, coupled with the unilateral aggression by the US sets a dangerous precedent. Nations like China, North Korea, or India, emboldened by the collapse of international norms, may pursue their own aggressive ambitions—China against Taiwan, North Korea against South Korea and Japan, and India against Pakistan—further destabilizing the global order. The failure to hold the US accountable could mark the beginning of the end for the UN, just as the League of Nations dissolved in the face of unchecked aggression by Japan, Italy and Nazi Germany.
The international community, particularly US allies, must condemn this act of aggression and demand accountability. The UK, France, Russia and China, as veto holding members of the UN Security Council, along with the 10 non-permanent UNSC members should push for sanctions against US officials involved in the strike, even if a US veto renders such efforts symbolic. Failure to act will embolden further violations of international law, paving the way for a world where aggression will become the norm between adversarial nations, and make meaningless the few rules that maintain an uneasy global peace. The US attack on Iran is not just a regional crisis, it is a global warning. If the rule of law is to survive, nations (including US allies) must unite to reject this dangerous rogue behaviour and chart a path towards diplomacy leading to peace.
The US strike on Iran is a stark reminder of this impotence, and how seriously broken the so-called international legal order is. Iran had already called for a UN Security Council session to address this blatant violation of its sovereignty as a result of Israel’s attacks, and threats by the US to join Israel’s unprovoked war. But had the meeting taken place it is more than likely that the US would have vetoed any resolution that would have advocated for peace and a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. This inability by the UN to rein in aggressor nations mirrors the League of Nations’ failure in 1935, when Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia faced only token sanctions, exposing the League’s inability to enforce international law. The League’s collapse soon followed, and the UN is now heading towards that same cliff. It may not happen tomorrow but the drift of the UN towards such an end is evident. A post on X by UN Secretary General Antonio Gutterres, condemned the US strike as a “dangerous escalation” and a “direct threat to peace and security, and urged diplomacy, underscoring the organization’s desperation to stay relevant. Yet, without the ability to hold veto-wielding nations accountable, the UN’s credibility as a guarantor of global stability is crumbling as the great powers ignore its pleas for peace and do as they please, with little regard for diplomacy or peace.
The justification for the US and Israeli attacks on Iran—allegedly to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons—lacks credibility. US intelligence officials have stated as recently as last week that Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon—an assessment that Trump has ignored. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, a right it holds under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Israel (an illegal nuclear nation), notably, is not a party. The Israeli strikes, followed by US involvement, appear less about neutralizing a genuine threat and more about advancing Israel’s agenda of becoming the supreme military power in the region, and undercut Iran’s support for the Palestinian resistance movement, which is the strongest among Middle-East nations.
Academic and media analyses reinforces this view. Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute has argued that Iran poses no existential threat to Israel, and any US attack would be driven by Israel’s desire to cripple a regional rival that vocally opposes its policies toward Palestinians. The Atlantic Council notes that Israel’s strikes were motivated by a narrow window of opportunity to target Iran’s nuclear program, not by an imminent threat. This suggests a premeditated act of aggression by Israel rather than a defensive necessity, undermining claims that Iran was an immediate danger to regional peace.
Far from enhancing security, the US and Israeli attacks on Iran risk plunging the Middle East into further chaos. Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone strikes on Israel, which have killed civilians and damaged infrastructure, demonstrate the potential for escalation. The conflict threatens critical global trade routes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, through which half of China’s oil imports pass. Iran’s weakened but still capable military, combined with its proxy forces, could target US bases or shipping lanes, drawing the US into a protracted conflict that will drain its treasury and weaken the US further.
The precedent set by US interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya suggests that such actions often lead to unintended consequences—failed states, refugee crises, and the rise of extremist groups. A destabilized Iran could trigger a regional power vacuum, fuelling civil war or enabling terrorist groups to seize nuclear materials, and create a refugee crisis on par with the Syrian crisis in the early 2010s. The US attack, far from neutralizing a threat, has heightened the risk of a broader regional conflict, with ripple effects that could destabilize surrounding nations, the way that Syria was destabilized as a result of the Iraq War.
The US has a long history of targeting adversary nations unable to match its military might, while avoiding direct confrontation with more formidable adversaries. Iran, despite its regional influence, lacks the capacity to challenge US military dominance directly, making it an easy target. In contrast, the US has refrained from military engagement with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, despite Russia’s clear violation of international law. Trump’s cancellation of a planned meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on June 17, 2025 at the G7 Summit, to focus on the Iran conflict highlights this selective approach. If the US truly prioritized enforcing global peace, it would have confronted Russia’s aggression head-on with military force, rather than targeting a nation like Iran, which has not invaded or occupied another country in modern history.
This pattern of selective aggression—attacking weaker states like Iraq, Libya, and now Iran, while avoiding peer adversaries—exposes the US as a global bully and a rogue nation. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by lies about weapons of mass destruction, resulted in more than a million deaths, a destabilized region, the creation of ISIS, increased incidents of terrorism, and failed to enhance US security. Similarly, the US intervention in Libya in 2011 led to a failed state and a proliferation of arms to terrorist groups, undermining global stability. These actions demonstrate that American aggression, far from making the US safer, often exacerbates threats and fuels anti-American and anti-Western sentiment.
Under Donald Trump, the US has embraced a reckless foreign policy that prioritizes unilateral action over diplomacy. Trump’s bellicose rhetoric, including threats to “take out” Iran’s Supreme Leader and demands for “unconditional surrender,” reflects a delusional and dangerous disregard for international norms. His decision to attack Iran, despite ongoing nuclear negotiations, undermines the diplomatic efforts of US allies and shows the world that the US is a danger to its adversaries as well as its allies. Trump’s apparent yearning for an era when imperialism ruled the world is likely to cause other nations to see it as a danger to global peace and will accelerate US decline as a global power.
The United State’s actions under Trump mirror those of a rogue nation, launching unprovoked attacks, flouting international law and destabilizing peace and the global order. By aligning closely with Israel, another state accused of violating international norms, the US has eroded its already diminishing moral authority. The failure of US allies—particularly NATO members—to condemn this unprovoked aggression risks legitimizing a global order of might-makes-right. If these nations do not act to uphold the rule of law, they will be complicit in the erosion of the international legal order and the potential slide towards a conflict that could engulf nations around the world.
The American attack on Iran could be the spark that ignites a broader war. Russia, a key Iranian ally, has warned that the conflict risks a “nuclear catastrophe,” while China, reliant on Iranian oil, faces significant economic disruption, and could act to protect its economic interests. In addition, the involvement of regional actors, such as the Houthis, who have threatened to target ships in the Red Sea or Hezbollah, could escalate the conflict further. If Iran retaliates against US bases or allies, the cycle of escalation could knock over other dominoes, draw in other major powers, and result in a global conflagration.
The UN’s inability to act decisively, coupled with the unilateral aggression by the US sets a dangerous precedent. Nations like China, North Korea, or India, emboldened by the collapse of international norms, may pursue their own aggressive ambitions—China against Taiwan, North Korea against South Korea and Japan, and India against Pakistan—further destabilizing the global order. The failure to hold the US accountable could mark the beginning of the end for the UN, just as the League of Nations dissolved in the face of unchecked aggression by Japan, Italy and Nazi Germany.
The international community, particularly US allies, must condemn this act of aggression and demand accountability. The UK, France, Russia and China, as veto holding members of the UN Security Council, along with the 10 non-permanent UNSC members should push for sanctions against US officials involved in the strike, even if a US veto renders such efforts symbolic. Failure to act will embolden further violations of international law, paving the way for a world where aggression will become the norm between adversarial nations, and make meaningless the few rules that maintain an uneasy global peace. The US attack on Iran is not just a regional crisis, it is a global warning. If the rule of law is to survive, nations (including US allies) must unite to reject this dangerous rogue behaviour and chart a path towards diplomacy leading to peace.
© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment